OT: Please send this link to everyone one your mailing list

When you have a 20,000 MW base load (like in my area), the solutions
need a big hammer. Plants like the ones where 2 of my daughters work,
are solving those kind of needs 3000MW at a crack. Nukes are big
baseload machines, something that neither wind, or solar can offer. At
least not in any way we can see. The geothermal thing, I'm not really
familiar with, but at least that wouldn't be weather dependent.
It absolutely goes without saying that super-clean power such as solar
and wind is preferred even over a nuke.

When you have a 20,000 MW base load (like in my area), the solutions
need a big hammer. Plants like the ones where 2 of my daughters work,
are solving those kind of needs 3000MW at a crack. Nukes are big
baseload machines, something that neither wind, or solar can offer. At
least not in any way we can see. The geothermal thing, I'm not really
familiar with, but at least that wouldn't be weather dependent.
It absolutely goes without saying that super-clean power such as solar
and wind is preferred even over a nuke.
Now I'll agree with you.
All we have to do is get the solar converters up from about 16% to something more useful, the wind to be more consistent (the big vane generate in a 2 mph gale), the geothermal to be more cost-effective; and we will be able to let the coal lie (if we will stop turning coal into gas and tar),and the Arabs go dry.
Not a really big deal is it (he writ facetiously)? <g>
Let me know how you make out with your new wall.
P D Q

Now that is one of the stupidist statements I've seen you make. So sorry
that those of us who live right next to nuclear plants are not as
"informed" as you. Or maybe you're not as "informed" as you'd like
everybody to believe.

I certainly would not dispute that nuclear waste is dangerous and disposal
is a real problem. However, by way of comparison, there is a single
slurry impoundment it West Virginia that holds 9 BILLION gallons of
sludge created from processing coal. Like most of those in the eastern
coal mining states, it was created by damming up a valley between 2 hills
where coal is being mined. This particular dam is close to an elementary
school. It has been cited for engineering and design problems but no
action taken.
In 1972 a similar dam failed and killed 125 people, as well as causing
millions ( billions?) in property damage. In 2000 another coal waste
dam failure released over 300 million gallons. Just recently, the fly
ash spill in Tennessee illustrates that there is a disposal problem caused
by burning coal, as well as from mining it. Since 1990 over 700 miners
have died in US coal mine accidents. Take a look at an aerial photograph
of mountaintop removal mines in W. Va or Kentucky, just seeing the
damage to the environment is enough to sicken.
Personally, I would much rather see this country pursue research into safely
using nuclear energy rather than continue to burn coal. We have already
proven how dangerous coal is.

You have to look at the comparison on a MW per environmental and human
cost basis....
Coal kills people every day, all day. The death rate due to nuclear
environmental impact barely registers in comparison.
We are talking about power generators..not nuclear bombs. So many
people think they're one and the same.... and the coal and oil
bastards will do all they can to keep you believing that.
Even hydro electric dams have a negative environmental impact. What do
you think our children's children will say about Three Gorges by the
time that mess rears its ugly head.

Only to the point that the ineveitable will happen again. Three Mile
Island was only a taste of what can be, and the issues of waste are far
from resolved, let alone properly being dealt with.

Yes - but that one occurance will more than make up for it. But more
important than the scare tactic is the question of what to do with the
waste? It's great as long as you're not living next to it and someone else
is. Tomorrow's news will just be a "so-sorry" for you, but it will present
much larger problems for a lot of people than today's coal problems
present.

Ugh - I live within 20 miles of 3 of them - I think I know the difference.

No - you've got it wrong. The advocates of nuclear like to accuse everyone
arond them of not knowing the difference, but think about it - how many
people do you really know who do not know the difference between the bomb
and the reactor down the road? Answer - none.

It has nothing to do with coal and oil bastards. Nuclear is a very
dangerous generator and we have not made one inch of progress in dealing
with the waste over the past 20 years. This is not a problem that is going
to magically go away just because you like to think it's better than
fossile fuels.

For the love of Pete - you're not seriously suggesting that you are leaving
a better earth behind for your grandchildren by advocating nuclear, are
you? Talk about being brainwashed by the industry - you've lost all
perspective at the hands of the nuclear industry. "Don't worry - those
wastes are perfectly safe, and we have perfectly safe operations, with
qualified and trained staff... and no financial motivation..."

[snip]
A lot better than "drill-baby-drill." That type of thinking has got to
stop.

What I am advocating is to get off those fossil fuels. They are
finite. They are controlled by enemies. They mess up the environment.
So what do we know about solutions? Not much, but in the meantime, we
can use a lesser of evils. I am in no way advocating that nukes are a
panacea, but they are a nice alternative to a problem which certainly
has no solutions at all.
And NOBODY that I know has ever said that the waste is safe. I know I
haven't said that. That shit will hurt you.
What I have said, is that it it can be managed safely. Just like your
country sits on thousands of nuclear warheads, safely. Radio-active
materials are handled by thousands every day in medicine
alone...safely. Sure nuke-waste is more intense, but we do know how to
handle it. The stuff getting belched out by a thousand oil and coal
fired power plants? Not so much.
The future holds many promises. I would like for my kids to get there.
Fossil fuels ain't good for children and other living things, to
paraphrase a line from the 60's.
Nukes may not be much better... but they are better.
I do appreciate where you're coming from, Mike, but your view of the
nuclear industry is disproportionate to reality.

I'm not so sure about that. Every alternative has its own drawbacks. As
long as there are humans growing in population on earth, the basic human
needs are going to have an impact on the environment. The potential for
large scale disaster with nuclear waste is far greater than "drill baby
drill".

Only the current forms. Shale oil still holds huge promise for us, at very
high levels of abundance, and affordable means of extraction. Fossil is
indeed finite, but it is not a four letter word.

So do nuclear wastes and nuclear accidents.

It's on that point of them being a "nice" alternative that we are not in
complete agreement. I see greater risk in nuclear than you do.

Yet, it seems to be ignored by your position that nuclear is the prefered
wave of the future.

I'd rather see more efforts to control emissions than wholesale chasing
after nuclear energy.

Your last statement is baseless. I don't make assertions on this topic
that are beyond my level of understanding and so far have only commented on
concerns for waste and the recognized dangers of nuclear power. We have
seen first hand the dangers of it. I think your position is missing the
reality of the dangers of nuclear - both long term and in the immediate.

Log in

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.